Routes 350 and U5 swap between Hayes and Stockley Park Consultation Report January 2017

2

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3

1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5

2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 8

3. About the respondents ...................................................................................... 12

4. Summary of all consultation responses ............................................................ 15

5. Next steps ......................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ............................................................. 24

Appendix B: Stakeholder List .................................................................................... 29

Appendix C: Copy of customer email ........................................................................ 34

Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email .................................................................... 35

Appendix E: Bus stop poster ..................................................................................... 36

3

Executive summary

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation

on the following scheme: proposal to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and

Stockley Park.

Between 30 September and 11 November 2016, we consulted on these proposals.

We received 302 responses to the consultation (including six responses from local

stakeholders), of those which answered the questions 26 per cent supported or

partially supported our proposals and 61 per cent opposed or opposed most

elements.

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Appendix A.

Summary of issues raised during consultation

The majority of respondents were either opposed, or opposed elements, of our

proposal to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes.

The detailed comments on the scheme indicated that the key concern was the

reduction in frequency and capacity on route 350 rather than the swapping of the

routes.

The main issues were frustrations that the proposals did not address the perceived

capacity concerns on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. Respondents were

concerned that the reduction would further exacerbate capacity issues from Hayes to

Stockley Park.

Another key issue was the feeling it would make access to Heathrow (especially for

night time shift workers) more problematic with longer overall journey times due to

the wait between buses. There were concerns that it would encourage greater car

use and add to the congestion in and around the airport.

Of those that commented on the introduction of double deck buses to the U5, the

majority were in favour of the extra capacity this would deliver.

There were numerous requests for us to increase the frequency of either or both

routes in the peak periods, especially on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor.

Next steps

After considering all responses, we plan to proceed with the scheme as proposed.

4

We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5, after the service

change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor, to assess whether demand justifies

an increase in capacity.

5

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

From December 2019, a direct Elizabeth line service (formally referred to as

Crossrail) to Central and East London will run from Hanwell, Southall, Hayes and

Harlington, West Drayton and Heathrow. Overall, demand around Elizabeth line

stations within the London Borough of Hillingdon is expected to increase significantly

on some corridors. The bus network needs to reflect and respond to these changes.

We have reviewed bus routes serving Elizabeth line stations in the area, to make

sure that services can match future travel demand in the best way possible.

1.2 Purpose

We strive to provide a network that has sufficient capacity at the busiest point at the

busiest times but also builds in additional capacity on those corridors where we

anticipate growth in demand. However, we need to provide any enhancements in a

cost effective way.

The purpose of this scheme is to transfer the busiest section of the route 350 to the

route U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes and Harlington station. This would allow

one route to serve all the busy sections on both the U5 and 350.

The demand levels would then justify the conversion to a double deck. This would

negate the need for an additional journey in the AM peak on the U5 between Porters

Way and West Drayton station. It would also allow for savings on the route 350

where demand does not meet capacity outside of the AM peak and for sections west

of Stockley Park. The increase in capacity on the U5 would also allow us to meet

expected demand growth from the opening of Elizabeth line services in the area.

1.3 Detailed description

We proposed to swap routes 350 and U5 between Hayes and Stockley Park:

Route U5 would be re-routed to serve North Hyde Road, Dawley Road and

Furzeground Way. Double deck buses will be introduced and the frequency

will stay the same

Route 350 would be re-routed to serve Botwell Lane, Botwell Common Road

and Furzeground Way. Single deck buses will be introduced and it will run

less frequently with a bus every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday during the

daytime, and every 30 minutes Sundays and evenings

6

The existing frequency of double-deck services between Hayes and Stockley

Park, via North Hyde Road, would not change

The hours of operation, including the early start on the 350, would remain the

same

Here is a map of the current routes:

7

Here is a map of the proposed routes:

8

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:

To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about

the proposals and allow them to respond

To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the

proposals

To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were

not previously aware

To understand concerns and objections

To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to

proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the

proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not

to proceed with the scheme

2.3 Who we consulted

We sought the views of those customers currently using the routes, along with

representatives for a number of key institutions, railway stations and employment

destinations along the route. We also consulted stakeholders including the London

Borough of Hillingdon, schools and colleges, London TravelWatch, local politicians,

and local resident and community groups.

9

2.4 Dates and duration

The consultation was open for six weeks between 30 September and 11 November

2016.

2.5 What we asked

The questionnaire asked nine generic questions relating to name, age, gender, email

address, postcode, organisation name (if responding on behalf of a

business/stakeholder/organisation), whether the respondent had a health problem or

disability which limited their day to day activities, how they had heard about the

consultation, and views on the quality of the consultation (respondents were asked

two questions on the quality: to rate in a scale from very good to very poor; and to

provide any comments).

There were five questions specific to the consultation:

How often do you use the bus routes U5 and 350? Respondents were given a

choice of six answers: 5+ days a week, 3 to 4 days a week, 1 to 2 days a week, 1

to 3 times a month, less than once a month, I do not use this route

To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of

the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?

Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the routes 350 and U5?

(there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)

Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck

vehicles on the route U5? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide

comments)

Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the frequency

of the 350? (there was a free text box for respondents to provide comments)

2.6 Methods of responding

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They

could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address

at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing consultations@tfl.gov.uk

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity We sent out 5,850 emails to registered customers who use the U5 and 350 and we

also wrote to 179 stakeholders about the consultation. We displayed posters either

on or around bus stops and also sent posters to be displayed in local institutions

such as GP surgeries, schools and places of worship.

10

A copy of the email that was sent to customers can be found in Appendix C.

A copy of the stakeholder email can be found in Appendix D.

A copy of the poster can be found in Appendix E.

2.7.1 Website

The consultation was available on our consultation website

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-u5-and-350

2.7.2 Letters and/or leaflets

Our principal method of communcoiation was via customer email and posters at bus

stops. However, we also sent letters to frontages along sections of the U5 that would

have double deck buses used on them for this first time. We also sent a letter to

frontages on York Road and Chippendale Way to notify them of our proposed

changes to the bus standing arrangements.

2.7.3 Emails to public

We sent an email with a link to the online consultation to registered users of the U5

and 350 bus routes. In total 5,850 emails were sent out.

2.7.4 Emails/letters to stakeholders

We sent an email or a letter to stakeholders with a link to the online consultation

page. In total 179 communications were sent out. A full list of the stakeholder we

contacted can be found in Appendix B.

2.7.5 Press and media activity

We issued a press release to the west London local website, Getwestlondon which is

the online presence of local hard copy newspapers in the area.

2.7.6 On-site advertising

Posters highlighting the consultation were placed at bus stops along the route where

space was available, and on neighbouring lamp coloumns and shelters where there

was no space on the bus stop post.

Copies of the poster were also sent to various local institutions along both routes

with the request that they were displayed This inlcuded libraries, schools, religious

institutions, GP surgeries, railway stations, and lesiure and community centres.

11

2.7.7 Meetings with stakeholders

We carried out pre-engagement with London Borough of Hillingdon, sustainable

travel team at Heathrow Airport and the travel consultants for the Stockley Park

Travel Planning Group during the planning stages of the consultaton. We also

attended a meeitng of the Stockely Park Travel Planning Group just before the

launch of the consultation to brief them on the proposals.

2.8 Analysis of consultation responses

Analysis of the consultation responses was carried out in-house.

There were four “open” questions (three seeking comments about the proposals and

one on the quality of the consultation). A draft coding frame was developed for

responses to these questions, which was finalised following review by another

member of the team. Two people conducted the tagging exercise and their

methodology was audited after the initial 25 repsonses to ensure a consistent

approach.

There was one duplicate response which was deleted.

12

3. About the respondents

This section contains a profile of the responses from the general public. Please note

responses from stakeholders are reported separately under section 4.3.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents Total %

Public responses 296 98%

Stakeholder responses 5 2%

Total 301

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

294 of the 296 answered this question. With over 46 per cent of respondents stating

the customer email as the principal way that they heard about the consultation.

How did you hear about this consultation?

Option Total %

Received an email from TfL 137 47

Received a letter from TfL 1 0

Read about in the press 5 2

Saw it on the TfL website 28 10

Social media 17 6

Other (please specify) 68 23

Not Answered 38 13

Total 294

3.3 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total %

Online 279 95

Email/Post 15 5

Total 294

How did you hear about this consultation? - "Other"

"Other" Total %

Word of mouth 26 33

Poster at bus stop

32 40

Community/workplace

22 28

Total 80

13

3.4 Profile of respondents

We asked a number of questions to profile respondents. Over 40 per cent of

respondents were regularly using the U5 and over 65 per cent regularly using the

350. The majority of those responding were male. The most common group to

respond were those aged 25-44 and just over 4 per cent of respondents declared a

disability that limits their daily activities.

How often do you use these bus routes?

Option U5 % 350

%

5 or more days a week 63 21 132 45

1 to 4 days per week 63 21 73 25

Less frequently than 1 day per week 79 27 36 12

Never 57 19 23 8

Prefer not to say 8 3 9 3

Not applicable (if responding on behalf of an organisation, business or community group) 1 0 2 1

Not Answered 23 8 19 6

Total 294 294

What is your age group?

Age group Number of responses %

Under 16 6 2

16-24 37 13

25-44 152 52

45-64 70 24

65-74 9 3

75+ 1 0

Not Answered 19 6

Total 294

14

Are you male or female?

Option Total %

Male 171 58

Female 103 35

Not Answered 20 7

Total 294

Do you have a mental or physical disability that limits your daily activities or the work you can do, including any issues due to your

age?

Option Total %

Yes 13 4

No 258 88

Not Answered 23 8

Total 294

15

4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 296 responses from members of the public. Their responses are set

out in section 4.1 to 4.4. The five responses from stakeholders are included in

section 4.5.

4.1 Summary of responses to Question 1

4.1.1 Overall support

We asked respondents to tell us whether they supported our proposals. 281 out of

294 respondents answered this question.

SupportSupport

mostelements

Neithersupport

or oppose

Opposemost

elementsOppose Not sure

Don’t know

NotAnswered

Responses 36 42 19 62 117 4 1 13

% 12% 14% 6% 21% 40% 1% 0% 4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

To what extent do you support or oppose our proposals to change the routes of the 350 and U5 between Stockley Park and Hayes?

16

4.1.2 Top 10 issues

The table below shows the top 10 issues that were raised by respondents across all

three free text questions.

Top Ten Issues

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly line

71

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to Stockley Park 71

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: General opposition

45

Increase Frequency on 350

37

Support introducing double deck buses on U5 – general

36

Support introducing double deck buses on U5- extra capacity

28

Oppose decrease in frequency of 350: Access to West Drayton Station/Crossrail

23

Oppose re-routing of 350: Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22

General opposition

21

Request to keep frequency of 350 as is

21

4.2 Summary of Question 2

We asked respondents to tell us whether they had any comments they would like to

make on the proposed changes to routes 350 and U5. A detailed analysis of

comments is available in Appendix A. The largest issue raised was that the

proposals do not address perceived capacity issues in the peaks on the Hayes to

Stockley Park Corridor. It was felt that introducing single deck buses on the route

350 would exacerbate capacity issues. There were calls for an increase in

frequency of routes serving the Hayes to Stockley Park Corridor and for us to match

bus departures to train arrival times. People were also concerned that the new route

for 350 would result in longer journey times to the airport.

17

4.2.1 Issues commonly raised

Issue Total

Opposition 20

General opposition 20

Oppose 350 becoming a single decker 41

General opposition to introduction of single deck buses on the route 21

Concerns about adequate capacity in the peaks 20

Concerns about adequate space for luggage 10

Oppose re-routing of routes 350 & U5 40

Longer journey times from T5 to Hayes 22

Keep current routes 7

Concerns about access to Asda 6

Broken journeys to Botwell Green Leisure Centre 4

Broken journeys Dawley Road to Heathrow 1

Other 33

Out of scope of consultation 17

Misunderstood Proposal 9

Concerned about Uxbridge Town Centre stops 4

May cause confusion for current users 3

Support 17

General support 12

Support 350 becoming single deck bus 5

Suggestions 66

General frequency increase on U5 22

Increase frequency in peaks between Hayes & Stockley Park 29

Address timetabling so buses are timed for train arrivals 10

Make 350 double deck in peaks 5

18

4.3 Summary of Question 3

We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on

proposals to introduce double deck vehicles on the U5. A detailed analysis of

comments is available in Appendix A. The most frequently raised comment was

support for introducing double deck buses on the U5 as it would deliver extra

capacity on the route.

4.3.1 Issues commonly raised

Issue Total

Concerns/opposed 10

Concerned about quality of buses used 5

Concerns about adequate road width 4

Suggestion tree cutting may be required 1

Opposed 9

Oppose double deckers on U5: General 9

Support 65

Comments demonstrating general support for introduction of double deck buses

37

Support extra capacity 28

Suggestion 22

Make both routes double deck 12

Double deck only required in AM/PM peak 6

Make U5 more frequent instead of double deck 2

4.4 Summary of Question 4

We asked respondents to tell us whether they would like to make any comments on

proposals to change the frequency of the 350. A detailed analysis is available in

Appendix A. The most frequently cited issues were this change would have a

detrimental effect on journeys to Stockley Park and to Heathrow Airport.

19

4.4.1 Issues commonly raised

Oppose decrease in frequency 210

Access to Heathrow/Piccadilly line

71

Access to Stockley Park

71

General opposition

45

Access to West Drayton Station/Crossrail 23

Suggestions 71

Increase Frequency on 350

37

Keep frequency as is

21

Keep Peak Frequency as is

8

Shuttle bus between Hayes and Stockley Park

5

4.5 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We

sometimes have to condense detailed responses into brief summaries. The full

stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Local Authorities

London Borough of Hillingdon

The borough confirmed they did not have any objections to our proposed changes to

bus routes 350 and U5.

Businesses, employers and venues

HAVI

HAVI support most elements of the proposals including the introduction of double

deck buses to the U5 but oppose the reduction in frequency of the 350 as they feel

more buses not fewer are needed to serve Stockley Park.

20

Heathrow Airport

The airport did not submit a formal response during the consultation period.

However, we did carry out pre-engagement with them where they did not think there

was anything in the proposal that currently caused them concern. They appreciate

that getting more joined up journeys from Elizabeth line services to buses is key to

increasing public transport journeys to/from the airport.

They were pleased to note that the early start time of 350 would remain as

maintaining the early services was important to them.

IMG Productions

The company oppose the proposals. They are concerned that the reduction in

frequency of 350 service to Heathrow from Stockley Park would adversely affect

users from their building in Stockely Park. They would welcome further measures to

increase capacity between Hayes and Stockley Park as this is grossly overcrowded

in the morning.

Stockley Park Travel Planning Group (SPTPG)

This stakeholder represents the businesses based in Stockley Park and works to

improve travel planning for employees. They oppose our proposals as they feel they

do nothing to address the current issues that are faced by commuters accessing

Stockley Park.

The group state that the majority of Stockley Park employees who travel by bus use

the 350 as it’s the quickest journey to Stockley Park. However, they note that

customers will take whichever of the services arrives first and customers often cross

the road to use the U5. They recognise that the U5 under the new proposal would

become the quickest route but they are concerned as to what bus stop it would leave

from - if the double decker U5 leaves from the stop across the road, then every

morning, there would be a lot of people crossing (and sometimes running) across the

road to catch the bus.

They strongly disagree on the proposition to have a less frequent 350 service and

would recommend keeping the double deck on 350 and adding double decks for the

U5 route.

They would also like to see more frequent services for both U5 & 350 especially

during peak time (8-10am and 5-7pm) as they feel it is often a battle to get on a bus

form the station in the morning. They would also like to see a specific bus for

Stockley Park only at peak time.

They are also calling for us to better align the bus and train timetables so that buses

depart after the trains arrive. They feel this would help to address wait times and

overcrowding the employees currently report.

21

They are also concerned that the opening of the Elizabeth line will also see more

people accessing Stockley Park via Hayes Station and the reduction in capacity

through the reduction in frequency of the 350 will make it harder to get on a bus in

the peak periods.

Local interest groups

Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association

The asssociation stated they neither supported or oppposed the proposals. They are

concerned about the reduction in frequency between West Drayton and Heathrow

Airport and the impact this will have on users in the villages around Heathrow,

especially the reduction to the servcies in the evening. They feel a wait time of up to

30 minutes is unacceptable. They would also like to see better alignment of bus

departure times with trian arrival times at West Drayton.

Yewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group

Stated they supported the proposals and were pleased that 350 would now terminate

at Hayes Asda.

4.6 Comments on the consultation

267 respondents (91%) of respondents provided a comment on the quality of the

consultation and associated materials. The majority felt the quality of the consultation

was very good or good.

Very good Good Acceptable Poor Very poorNot

Answered

Number ofresponses

61 107 70 19 10 27

% 21% 36% 24% 6% 3% 9%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140What do you think about the quality of this consultation?

22

We received 35 comments about the consultation. The main issues rasied were

concerning the consultation process with 11 comments concerned that we should

have done more to advertise the consultation and five that the decision has already

been made so the consultation is a pointless exercise. A further eight felt the

rationale for the proposal was poorly explained in the materials.

23

5. Next steps

After considering all responses, we have concluded that there have not been any

issues raised that were not considered in the planning of the proposal.

We appreciate that customers are unlikely to support a reduction in frequency of

services, however we need to ensure we balance minimising disruption to customers

with the need to operate the bus service in a cost effective way.

Currently the 350 is lightly used, except for a mile-long section between Hayes &

Harlington Station and Stockley Park in the morning peak. Swapping the routes of

the U5 and 350 along this stretch allows us to reduce the frequency on the 350 and

replace double with single deck buses to better align capacity with demand, and

ensure we are providing services in a cost effective way.

We will commit to close monitoring of the capacity levels of the U5 after the service

change on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor to assess whether demand justifies

an increase in capacity.

We therefore plan to proceed with our proposal. The service change will be

implemented in April 2017.

24

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

Of the 294 respondents, 217 left comments in the open text fields across questions

two, three and four. We have summarised the significant themes below.

Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the route

350 and U5?

General Opposition

There were 20 respondents who objected to the scheme with general comments

such as:

I don't like these changes

Not a great idea

Pointless/unnecessary exercise

The proposed change is degradation of the service

Changes not needed

Maintain current routes

No benefit or improvement to service

Oppose 350 becoming a single deck bus

We received 51 comments opposing the introduction of a single deck bus to the

revised 350 route.

There were 21 comments where respondents cited general opposition to the

introduction of single deck buses on the route, with comments such as ‘I think it is a

mistake’; ‘I strongly oppose changing to single deck vehicle’; and ‘I think there should

be double deck buses for both the U5 and the 350’. Where respondents provided

further explanation it was typically regarding general concerns about impact on the

capacity of the route.

There were a further 20 comments expressing concern that the proposals would

result in inadequate capacity in the peak periods (including school journey times).

Especially for those wishing to access Stockley Park, as it was felt buses were

already overcrowded and left people at stops (especially in the AM peak). In

particular, there was concern that combined with the reduced evening and weekend

frequency, there would not be enough capacity for Heathrow’s shift workers (this can

fall outside of peak times – for example late in the evening).

There were also 10 comments suggesting single deck buses were inappropriate on a

route to the airport as there would be insufficient space for luggage.

25

Oppose re-routing of the routes 350 and U5

There were 33 comments opposing the re-routing of the 350 and the U5 because of

the impact on current journeys. The most common of these with 22 comments, was

objection on the grounds it would result in longer journey times to Heathrow Airport

for those in the Hayes area, as using Botwell Common Lane would lead to longer

journey times. It would also result in longer journey times to Heathrow from the

Dawley Road area as customers would need to use two services. Other areas of

concern were access to the Asda supermarket for current users of the U5, and

broken journeys for those west of Botwell Common Lane (in particular access to the

Leisure Centre).

A further seven comments called for us to keep the routes as they are.

Other general types of comments

There were three comments stating that changes would cause confusion for current

users. There were seven comments where respondents had misunderstood the

proposal or some aspects of it. The majority of the confusion seems to stem from the

route swap, with respondents not quite understanding which section would swap and

believing that the swap would make the U5 journey longer.

17 respondents made comments or suggestions that were not related this

consultation. Six of those respondents made suggestions relating to bus routes U1

and U3, i.e., varying arrival times, increasing capacity etc. The other bus route

mentioned in seven instances was route 222. Respondents commented that this run

parallel to U5. Three respondents suggested that frequency on the 222 should be

reduced in order for route 350 frequency to be maintained. Six respondents also

mentioned that route A10 had poor service and this needed to be addressed.

Support for the proposed changes to the route

There were 12 comments made that noted general support for the changes and for

the 350 becoming a single deck bus.

Suggestions

We received 66 comments making suggestions as to how we could improve the

proposals to swap the routes. The common theme across these comments was that

the proposal did not address the key issue for the routes, which was strongly felt to

be the lack of capacity on the Hayes to Stockley Park corridor. 29 comments called

for an increase on both routes in the peaks, particularly the AM.

There were a further 22 comments calling for a general increase in frequency on the

whole of the U5 route and five calls for the 350 to remain a double deck in the peak

periods.

26

There were also ten comments requesting us to address the timetabling of both

routes so that the bus departure times are better aligned to the train arrival times. It

was felt this would help to address the overcrowding concerns in the morning peak.

Do you have any additional comments on proposals to introduce double deck

vehicles on the route U5?

Concerns with introducing double decks on the route U5

We received 10 comments concerning the practicalities of introducing double deck

buses onto the route, these covered concerns about adequate road widths, whether

tree cutting would be required and also seeking clarification that a good quality

modern fleet would be introduced.

Opposition to introducing double deck buses on the route U5

We received nine comments objecting to the proposal to introduce a double decker

bus on route U5. Four of the respondents stated that the route is not busy enough to

warrant use of a double deck bus, while one said that they are only needed between

Hayes and Stockley. One respondent stated that as the U5 overlaps with a number

of other buses thus the extra capacity was not needed. One respondent said that

having double decker buses running down Porter’s Way would be intrusive and

suggested only having double decker buses during peak hours only if necessary.

Two did not give a reason for opposing the proposal while one said that if they had to

be introduced then TfL needed to ensure that the wheelchair spaces were only used

by wheelchair users and not taken up by pushchairs as is currently the case.

Support for introducing double decks on the route U5

We received 65 comments noting support for introducing double deck buses to the

route. Just over half of these were comments of general support like ‘This is a good

idea’ or ‘This should have been done years ago’. There were also a further 28

comments welcoming the increase capacity on the route particularly in regard to the

West Drayton area, school journey times and accommodating the extra 350

customers that would now use the U5.

Suggestions to modify the proposal to introduce double decks

We received 12 comments asking us to make both routes double deck, six

comments thought double deck buses were only required in the AM/PM peaks and a

further two comments suggested it would be more appropriate to make the U5 more

frequent rather than introduce double deck buses.

27

Do you have any additional comments on the proposed changes to the

frequency of the 350?

Opposition to the decrease in frequency

We received 210 comments opposing the proposed reduction in frequency. The

largest area of concern was the negative effect it would have on access to Heathrow

(Terminal 5), BA Waterside, Harmondsworth Detention Centre and the Piccadilly

Line, with 71 comments specifying concerns about this. There were concerns about

employees accessing work in a timely fashion and regular travellers making flights,

and that a reduction in frequency would result in unacceptable increases to overall

journey times.

A particular area of concern was the reduction in frequency to every 30 minutes at

the weekend and evening as it was felt this was unacceptable for airport workers

who would need to leave much more time to make journeys and would cause real

issues if the service was delayed or traffic was bad. In addition, it may present safety

concerns for shift workers who would need to wait longer at stops.

Many also noted that lower frequencies would deter people from using it and

encourage car use to the airport for both staff and those using the airport. Others

were concerned that opening of Elizabeth line services would in fact further increase

demand for access to Heathrow.

A couple of respondents also noted a reduction in service would be to the determent

of residents of the Heathrow Villages who use the service.

The second largest area of objection, with 71 comments, was the impact it would

have on access to Stockley Park. Respondents were concerned that the changes

would further intensify the current capacity problems between Hayes and Stockley

Park in the peak periods. Respondents noted overcrowding on buses and people

being left at stops. In addition a longer wait time between services would make the

journey longer, especially if customers just missed a service or were unable to get on

one due to it being at full capacity. Some noted that a number of employees of

Stockley Park businesses come from far away and that additional wait times would

present an unfair burden on their already lengthy journeys. There was also concern

that the opening of Elizabeth line would also create more demand for the route. Calls

for an increase in the U5 to offset the decrease in the 350 was also a common

theme.

There were 45 comments noting general opposition to the proposal with sentiments

such as ‘buses running every 20 minutes is not frequent enough’, ‘decreasing its

timetable would inconvenience me greatly” and “I think it’s too much of wait at every

12 minutes”

There were 22 comments about access to West Drayton station and the future

Elizabeth line service being compromised by the proposal to decrease the frequency

28

on route 350. The main issue mentioned 13 times was that the 350 is the only direct

bus between West Drayton and Terminal 5 and the decrease would make it more

difficult to travel between the two points. Respondents also stated that the decrease

in frequency would have a negative impact and inconvenience commuters. Some

also felt the local population is increasing and the introduction Elizabeth line services

will increase demand so frequency shouldn’t be decreased

Suggestions relating to proposals to change frequency of the 350

There were 74 comments suggestion alternatives to the proposal to reduce the

frequency of the route 350. There were 37 calls to actually increase, rather than

decrease the frequency. A further 21 to keep the frequency as is, eight to keep the

peak frequencies as is and five calls for us to introduce a shuttle bus service

between Hayes and Stockley Park.

29

Appendix B: Stakeholder List

London TravelWatch

Local Authorities

London Borough of Hillingdon

Elected Members

Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member

Nicky Gavron Assembly Member

Shaun Bailey Assembly Member

Kemi Badenoch Assembly Member

Sian Berry Assembly Member

David Kurten Assembly Member

Caroline Russell Assembly Member

Peter Whittle Assembly Member

Andrew Boff Assembly Member

Tom Copley Assembly Member

Onkar Sahota Assembly Member

Fiona Twycross Assembly Member

Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member

John McDonnell MP - Hayes & Harlington

Boris Johnson MP - Uxbridge and South Rusilip

Cllr Burrows Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling

Cllr Cooper Uxbridge North

Cllr Graham Uxbridge North

Cllr Yarrow Uxbridge North

Cllr Burles Uxbridge South

Cllr Cooper Uxbridge South

Cllr Chamdal Brunel

Cllr Mills Brunel

Cllr Stead Brunel

Cllr Ahmad-Wallana Yiewsley

Cllr Davis Yiewsley

Cllr Edwards Yiewsley

Cllr Duncan West Drayton

Cllr Gilham West Drayton

Cllr Sweeting West Drayton

Cllr Gardner Botwell

Cllr Jarjussey Botwell

Cllr Khursheed Botwell

30

Cllr Dhillon Pinkwell

Cllr Lakhmana Pinkwell

Cllr Morse Pinkwell

Cllr Khatra Heathrow Villages

Cllr Money Heathrow Villages

Cllr Nelson Heathrow Villages

Local Businesses and Institutions

Airline Operators

Committee Heathrow

Asda

BA Waterside

BAA Heathrow

Botwell Green Leisure

Centre

Botwell Green Library

Botwell House Catholic

Primary School

British Airways

Brunel University

Cowley St Laurence School

Harmondsworth

Immigration Centre

Harmondsworth Primary

School

Hayes and Harlington

Station

Hayes Elim Christian

Centre

Hayes Muslim Centre

Hyde Park Hayes

Immaculate Heart of Mary

Church

31

Lake Park Farm Academy

Laurel Lane Primary School

Moorcroft School

Parish Church of St Anslen

Rabbsfarm Primary School

Royal Mail

Skyport Trade Park

Spelthorne Farm Centre

St Lawrence's Church

St Mary's Church

St Matthew's Church,

Yiewsley

St Matthews CofE Primary

School

Stockley Academy

Stockley Park

The Uxbridge Community

Centre

Trade City Business Park

Uxbridge High School

Uxbridge Library

West Drayton Library

West Drayton Primary

School

West Drayton Station

West Drayton Young

People's Centre

Whitehall Infant School

Whitehall Junior School

Word Of Life Christian

32

Fellowship Church

Yiewsley and West Drayton

Community Centre

Yiewsley Library

Young People's Academy

Local Interest Groups

Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee

Hayes Town Centre Partnership

West London Alliance

Yiewsley and West Drayton Town Centre Action Group

Police and Health Authorities

Brunel Medical Centre

Central Uxbridge Surgery

Church Road Surgery

Dr Chana and Partners

Elers Road Health Clinic

Hayes Town Medical

Centre

Hillingdon Hospital

Hillingdon Safer Transport

Team

Kingsway Surgery

London Ambulance Service

Metropolitan Police

Heathrow Airport

Metropolitan Police service

NHS Hillingdon Clinical

33

Commissioning Group

Orchard Medical Practice

Otterfield Medical Centre

The Belmont Medical

Centre

Transport Groups

ICE -London

ICE -London

London Cycling Campaign

(Hillingdon)

London TravelWatch

London Omnibus Traction

Society

TPH for Heathrow Airport

Accessibility Groups

Accessibility Officer

(Hillingdon Council)

Disability Rights UK

RNIB

34

Appendix C: Copy of customer email

Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online

Home Plan journey Status update Bus information

Dear Test email recipient,

We would like your views on proposals to make changes to bus route 350, which runs between Hayes and Heathrow and bus route U5, which runs between Hayes and Uxbridge.

Both routes would be altered between Hayes and Stockley Park.

For full details on proposals, and to share your views, please click here

This consultation will run until 11 November.

Yours sincerely

Peter Bradley

Head of Consultation

These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

35

Appendix D: Copy of stakeholder email

36

Appendix E: Bus stop poster

Ends